59. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that could tend to establish a violation, as provided in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” in accordance with paragraph (c) of the same Article. The standard for evaluating these requirements is different from the one used to judge the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must undertake a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint demonstrates an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the American Convention, but not whether such a violation occurred. Such an evaluation is a summary review that does not prejudice or advance an opinion on the merits. 60. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requires petitioners to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in matters submitted to the Commission, even though the petitioners may do so. However, it is the duty of the Commission, in following the system of legal precedents, to determine in its admissibility reports, what provision of relevant Inter-American instruments is applicable and could be concluded to have been violated, should the alleged facts be proven by means of sufficient evidence and legal argument. 61. In this regard, the IACHR notes that the investigation into the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa y Plácido has been open for more than 10 years. The petitioners allege that during the investigation several irregularities were committed that have impeded a determination of the truth and affected the relatives of Mrs. Ochoa. These irregularities include the failure to investigate the threats and assaults prior to the death of Mrs. Ochoa, irregularities at the scene of the crime and in the investigation of logical leads that emerged in the investigation. The Commission notes as well that the petitioners claim that the evidence offered by them during the investigation was repeatedly rejected; that the expert opinions appearing in the case file are contradictory and that the investigating authority acted with partiality in the evaluation thereof. The Commission also notes that the petitioners have contended that no judge has been able to evaluate the evidence in the case file and that the final decision was taken by the investigating authority, which recommended and authorized on several occasions to “not bring criminal action,” even though the investigation had yielded information on individuals who testified to knowing about the alleged perpetrators of the murder of Mrs. Ochoa. 62. The Commission does not concur with the State in its claim that in analyzing the merits of this petition it would be acting as a “third instance,” thus overstepping the sphere of its competence. In this regard, the IACHR reiterates that “the Commission cannot review the judgments issued by the domestic courts acting within their competence and with due judicial guarantees,"10 nor “serve as an appellate court to examine alleged errors of internal law or fact that may have been committed by the domestic courts acting within their jurisdiction,"11 however, as part of its mandate to ensure observance of the rights provided for in the Convention, the Commission is necessarily competent to find a petition admissible and examine the grounds thereof, when the petition involves a domestic decision that is alleged to not adhere to the principles of due process of the law, or is an apparent violation of any other right protected by the Convention. 63. Additionally, the Commission notes that in similar cases pertaining to due diligence in the investigation of deaths where the theory of the investigating authority is suicide and the petitioners allege irregularities in the investigation, the European Court of Human Rights has found admissible and heard the merits of the petitions establishing that there is a positive obligation of the State to conduct an effective investigation of the circumstances of what appears to be a suicide.12 The IACHR has also found admissible a petition alleging violations in 10 See, in general, IACHR, Report Nº 101/00, Case 11.630 Arauz et al (Nicaragua), October 16, 2000, in Annual Report of the IACHR, 2000, paragraph 56, citing IACHR, Report Nº 39/96, Case 11.673, Marzioni (Argentina), October 15, 1996, in Annual Report of the IACHR, 1996, paragraphs 50 and 51. 11 IACHR, Report Nº 7/01, Case 11.716 Güelfi (Panama), February 23, 2001, Report Nº 39/96, Case 11.673, Marzioni (Argentina), October 15, 1996, in Annual Report of the IACHR, 1996, paragraphs 50 and 51. 12 So, for example, the European Court has found a case admissible in which the theory of the investigating authority was suicide noting that one of several obligations of the State is “an effective investigation into the circumstances of what appears to be a suicide” See ECHR, Sergey Shevchenko vs. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 56. Additionally, in the case of Masneva v. Ukraine, the European Court held that in examining the merits of this type of case, it must be 12